nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Floating small nuclear reactors bring serious risks

nuclear experts have highlighted crucial negatives that cast doubt on the floating nuclear utopia.Jan Haverkamp, Greenpeace Netherlands senior expert nuclear energy and energy policy, sees the three main disadvantages of Akademin Lomonosov to be the big human factors risk, its problematic construction, and the pollution of the Arctic region with nuclear waste.

this project is reintroducing a major pollution risk in an area which functions as a climate regulator for the globe – “the Arctic pristine area, which is a very important natural area for the entire balance on the planet,”

Is floating nuclear power a good idea?  Power Technology  By Yoana Cholteeva, 9 Dec 19,  Floating nuclear power promises to provide a steady source of energy at hard-to-reach locations, but at the same time the dangers inherent in nuclear power make some question whether it’s safe enough for areas where help is hard to find. Is floating nuclear power really a good idea? Yoana Cholteeva investigates.

Russian nuclear company Rosatom announced the arrival of the world’s first floating nuclear power plant, Akademik Lomonosov, in September 2019 when the technology was transported to the port of its permanent location in Russia’s Far East. The 144m-long and 30m-wide vessel has now docked at the port in Pevek, off the coast of Chukotka, where it will stay before its commissioning next year.

Akademik Lomonosov will use small modular reactor technology and is equipped with two KLT-40C reactor systems with 35MW capacity each. It has been designed to access hard-to-reach areas where it can operate for three to five years without the need for refuelling. It also has an overall life cycle of 40 years, which may be extended to 50 years Continue reading

December 10, 2019 Posted by | ARCTIC, Russia, safety, technology | Leave a comment

Significant obstacles to Rolls Royce’s fantasy of “clean” nuclear-supplied jet fuel

Rolls-Royce Touts Nuclear Reactors as Key to Clean Jet Fuel, Bloomberg, 

By Christopher Jasper,December 6, 2019, 
  • Synthetics, biofuels to be mainstay of aviation, CEO says
  •  Small reactors to be used to generate required electricityRolls-Royce Holdings Plc is pitching nuclear reactors as the most effective way of powering the production of carbon-neutral synthetic aviation fuel without draining global electricity grids.

    Drawing on technology developed for nuclear-powered submarines, the small modular reactors or SMRs could be located at individual plants to generate the large amounts of electricity needed to secure the hydrogen used in the process, according to Chief Executive Officer Warren East…….

    The proposals face significant obstacles, including widespread public concern about radiation leaks and the safe disposal of nuclear waste, as well as question marks over U.K. plans to revive the sector after Hitachi Ltd. and Toshiba Corp. withdrew from major projects.Rolls aims to minimize regulatory barriers by building an initial network of 16 SMRs on the sites of former U.K. nuclear power stations still approved for atomic use.

    The plants, costing 1.8 billion pounds ($2.4 billion) apiece, would feed the national grid and come online from the 2030s, with all complete by 2050. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-06/rolls-royce-pitches-nuclear-reactors-as-key-to-clean-jet-fuel

December 7, 2019 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – many pitfalls, including security risks

‘Many issues’ with modular nuclear reactors says environmental lawyer, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/many-issues-modular-nuclear-1.5381804

Three premiers have agreed to work together to develop the technology, Jordan Gill · CBC News   Dec 03, 2019  Modular nuclear reactors may not be a cure for the nation’s carbon woes, an environmental lawyer said in reaction to an idea floated by three premiers.

Theresa McClenaghan, executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, said the technology surrounding small reactors has numerous pitfalls, especially when compared with other renewable energy technology.

This comes after New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Ontario Premier Doug Ford agreed to work together to develop the technology.

Small modular reactors are easy to construct, are safer than large reactors and are regarded as cleaner energy than coal, the premiers say. They can be small enough to fit in a school gym.  Designs have been submitted to Canada’s nuclear regulator for review as part of a pre-licensing process.

The premiers say the smaller reactors would help Canada reach its carbon reduction targets but McClenaghan, legal counsel for the environmental group, disagrees.

“I don’t think it is the answer,” said McClenaghan. “I don’t think it’s a viable solution to climate change.”

McClenaghan said the technology behind modular reactors is still in the development stage and needs years of work before it can be used on a wide scale.

“There are many issues still with the technology,” said McClenaghan. “And for climate change, the risks are so pervasive and the time scale is so short that we need to deploy the solutions we already know about like renewables and conservation.”

Waste, security concerns: lawyer

While nuclear power is considered a low-carbon method of producing electricity, McClenaghan said the waste that it creates brings its own environmental concerns.

“You’re still creating radioactive waste,” said McClenaghan.

“We don’t even have a solution to nuclear fuel waste yet in Canada and the existing plans are not taking into account these possibilities.”

McClenanghan believes there are national security risks with the plan as well.  She said having more reactors, especially if they’re in rural areas, means there’s a greater chance that waste or fuel from the reactors could be stolen for nefarious purposes.

“You’d be scattering radioactive materials, potentially attractive to diversion, much further across the country,” said the environmental lawyer.

December 5, 2019 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Russia’s Rosatom planning to market Small Modular Nuclear Reactors to Europe

December 2, 2019 Posted by | marketing, Russia, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick to plan development of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors

Ontario, Saskatchewan, N.B. premiers to announce nuclear reactor deal, Global News  BY STAFF THE CANADIAN PRESS November 30, 2019 “….. The Ontario government said Premier Doug Ford will meet with Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs for an announcement at a hotel near Pearson International Airport on Sunday afternoon.

A spokesman with Moe’s office confirmed the announcement is connected to an agreement on technology for small modular reactors, while a spokeswoman for Ford’s office said it’s an agreement to work together to determine the best technologies for the deployment of small modular reactors in Canada……

Moe has said that Saskatchewan will address climate change over the next decade by looking to carbon capture and storage technology and by increasing research efforts around small modular nuclear reactors.

However, the possibility of bringing nuclear power to Saskatchewan could still be years away    https://globalnews.ca/news/6239231/premiers-nuclear-reactor-deal/

December 2, 2019 Posted by | Canada, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Nuclear-Powered Aircraft failed for both USA and Soviets

Both U.S. and Soviet Attempts at Developing a Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Ended in Failure   Nuclear shielding and weight issues proved insurmountable to both the U.S. and the Soviet Union.  By  Marcia Wendorf, November 17, 2019. In the 1950s, people dreamed of using nuclear energy to power all manner of transport — from cars to airplanes to airships. In the U.S. the father of the nuclear reactor, Enrico Fermi, envisioned a nuclear-powered aircraft, while in the USSR, the chief designer of the Soviet atomic bomb, Aleksandr Kurchatov, thought nuclear-powered “heavy aircraft” could be built.

A nuclear-powered bomber seemed a no-brainer since it could theoretically stay aloft indefinitely, providing an effective deterrent to a nuclear attack. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union researched nuclear-powered aircraft, but neither country developed an active-duty version due to problems inherent in the design. These included shielding air and ground crews from radiation, and the possible effect of a crash.

To date, no civilian nuclear-powered aircraft has ever been created.

Nuclear-powered jet engines

In May 1946, the U.S. Air Force initiated the Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) program. In 1951, NEPA was supplanted by the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program, which was run by the Atomic Energy Commission………….

As an odd aside to the nuclear-powered aircraft story, the U.S. military considered solving the shielding problem by employing elderly crews to fly the nuclear-powered airplanes. Their thinking was that the crew would die of natural causes before the effects of radiation could kill them.    https://interestingengineering.com/both-us-and-soviet-attempts-at-developing-a-nuclear-powered-aircraft-ended-in-failure

November 17, 2019 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

Will Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) submarines make nuclear submarines obsolete?

Why is the nuclear lobby frantically propagandising nuclear reactors for Australian submarines, just as it looks as if cheaper AIP submarines look likely to take over?  (Sell SMRS for submarines off quickly to a dumb nation, before they’re obsolete?)

AIP powered-submarines have proliferated across the world using three different types of engines, with nearly 60 operational today in fifteen countries. Around fifty more are on order or being constructed.

Stealth:…..AIP submarines can, if properly designed, swim underwater even more quietly.

Cost: ….a country could easily buy three or four medium-sized AIP submarines instead of one nuclear attack submarine

 

November 16, 2019 Posted by | 2 WORLD, technology | Leave a comment

New type of uranium nuclear fuel has safety risks

November 16, 2019 Posted by | safety, technology, UK, Uranium | Leave a comment

Boris Johnson and the UK plan for nuclear fusion

Boris Johnson’s   nuclear energy pledge backed by UK firm with ‘answer to world’s problem’ By CALLUM HOARE. Express UK, Nov 5, 2019  A UK firm has pledged to build on Boris Johnson’s plans to take the “big step” in treading the path for nuclear energy which the Prime Minister claimed will be on sale “around the world” during the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.

Last month, Mr Johnson tabled £220million over the next four years towards the design of a commercially viable fusion power station in the UK with the hope to supply the world with renewable energy starting in 2024. Also known as star fusion, the breakthrough is a form of renewable electric power generation created during the same fusion process of a star – and it could “save the world”. In October, Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom announced the Government’s new funding package – the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (STEP) during a visit to the site in Culham, Oxfordshire.  ……..Currently, the Joint European Torus (JET) is the world’s largest operational facility located at the Fulham Centre for Fusion Energy in Oxfordshire, where scientists work around the clock to scrutinise the technology.

JET was built by an international consortium in 1983, which formed the nucleus for the EU’s contribution to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) – a megaproject which will open in Saint-Paul-Les-Durance, France, in 2025………
However, UK firm Pulsar Fusion is already ahead of the game, CEO Richard Dinan told Express.co.uk. ……..

The only thing that’s going to restrict us is capital.

“To an investor – no one wants to invest in fusion for safety, it’s very high risk – don’t worry about cracking fusion, it’s about cracking the finance.”

Pulsar Fusion recently opened up the UK’s biggest nuclear fusion centre in a secret location near Bletchley, Buckinghamshire.

Mr Dinan is confident his company will, during the next few months, create matter hot enough to replicate the temperature of the Sun in the UK.

A vacuum chamber will form the heart of the reactor and it is claimed it could soon reach temperatures above 100 million degrees Celsius.

November 11, 2019 Posted by | politics, technology, UK | Leave a comment

Small nuclear power station consortium targeting Cumbrian sites

Small nuclear power station consortium targeting Cumbrian sites, The Mail 7th November, By Luke Dicicco  @lukeadicicco  Group business editor A consortium headed by engineering giant Rolls Royce has revealed it expects to develop its first-of-a-kind small nuclear reactors in Cumbria.

Alan Woods, director of strategy and business development at Rolls Royce, told delegates at the Global Reach 2019 event that is was focusing its efforts on developing its emerging Small Modular Reactors (SMR) at existing nuclear licensed sites – with Cumbria and Wales its top targets.

In July the Government said it will invest up to £18 million to support the design of the UK-made mini nuclear power stations. And this week UK Research and Innovation pledged to provide a further £18m, which will be matched by members of the consortium, to progress the project.

Both the Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Copeland Trudy Harrison and Copeland Borough Council have vowed to up the ante on lobbying the Government to push for SMRs to be developed in Copeland, following the demise of plans for a large-scale nuclear power station at the Moorside site. ……

“We expect to build them on sites in Wales and particularly in Cumbria. That’s where we’re focusing, that’s where we’ll put our effort.”- Mr Woods …..

The SMRs are roughly the size of a one-and-a-half football pitches……..Construction is expected to take around four years per station, although the first unit would be longer, said Mr Woods.

The consortium says it is targeting a £1.8bn cost for each station…….

However, industry insiders still believe a large-scale plant is more suited to the vast Moorside site adjacent to Sellafield. And hopes remain high that a new development will come forward for the site once the Government unveils a new way of financially supporting new plants, with the most likely option a Regulated Asset Base Model. ……

“Unless you build a fleet, you will not do it. We want an industrial partnership between UK and China.” – Rob Davies, chief operating officer at CGN UK

CGN is already heavily involved in the UK’s nuclear new build plans.

It is a partner in the under-construction Hinkley Point C power station in Somerset, as well as planned developments for Bradwell B in Essex and Sizewell C in Somerset. https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/18021450.small-nuclear-power-station-consortium-targeting-cumbrian-sites/

November 9, 2019 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

The failure of nuclear reprocessing and the “Plutonium Economy”

Paul Richards The Plutonium Economy failed.  nuclear fuel cycle watch australia, 25 Oct 19

No one on the planet has been able to run unspent nuclear fuel through twice, and make it economically viable, let alone the countless times needed to make it ecologically viable.

It costs more to run unspent fuel through once more than to

• mine uranium,
• process for shipping
• process into yellowcake
• make into rods
• ship rods onsite to reactors

There is little to NO CHANCE of doing that again, and again.

Business history shows this wasn’t possible when;

• uranium was at its peak in price in 1980

2019, about to enter the third decade of the 21C, where commodities exchanges show nuclear fuel it is;

• LOWEST PRICE than in all of economic history,

and yet it still can’t compete with any other energy sources.

Nuclear apologists are a joke, delusional.

The nuclear sales executives of the nuclear estate have been busy rebranding, white and greenwashing their product is ever since Ronald Reagan announced The Plutonium Economy failed.

In point of fact, carbon fuel, gas spinning a turbine, has been producing cheaper energy fully levelized for three decades than any nuclear reactor.

Large scale

• solar PV and
• on-offshore wind turbines
• reached PARITY with
• carbon fuel NATURAL GAS

late last decade on an LCOE basis.

For this whole decade these;

• renewable systems
• fully lifecycle factored
• are cheaper than even carbon fuels
• NATURAL GAS

October 26, 2019 Posted by | - plutonium, 2 WORLD, reprocessing | Leave a comment

Bill Gates still hoping for tax-payer funding for his small nuclear reactor project

Bill Gates’ Nuclear Reactor Hits a Roadblock, 
Engineering.com , October 21, 2019  Bill Gates is optimistic about the future—and the role of nuclear energy as an environmentally friendly energy source—but he faces significant obstacles along the way.

His company, TerraPower, is working on new technologies to revolutionize nuclear power. One of them is a traveling wave reactor (TWR). ………

One major problem with a TWR power plant is the price. It will cost about $3 billion to build a demonstration reactor. Even Bill Gates isn’t rich enough to fund it himself. TerraPower had signed a promising agreement with China to build a demonstration reactor, but the project has been shuttered due to China-U.S. trade tensions. The company is now lobbying Congress for a public-private partnership to fund the reactor.  ……

October 24, 2019 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

China’s huge unfinished underground nuclear facility

816 Underground Nuclear Plant  This top secret Chinese military megaproject is the world’s largest human-made tunnel structure.   Atlas  Obscura, Outside a remote village in the Chinese countryside, a cold wind blows from the mouth of a cavernous military nuclear facility drilled deep into the roots of an ancient Chinese mountain.

In the 1960s, at the height of the Cold War and amid rising tension between the Soviet and Chinese governments, the Chinese Communist Party began relocating its military installations inland, away from major targets in the large coastal cities. The 816 Nuclear Reactor was Communist China’s first foray into building its own nuclear reactor capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium without Soviet assistance.

To further protect against a nuclear attack, Premier Zhou Enlai approved a project that called for building the reactor underground, adding an extra layer of complexity to an already difficult engineering process. For the following 18 years, more than 60,000 workers were dispatched to an isolated base in the remote Sichuan mountains, at that time only reachable by boat. The tunnels were dug using only small drills, shovels, and dynamite, and official figures state that at least 100 workers died due to the harsh and dangerous working conditions, although it is suspected that the actual number is much higher.

Due largely to the changing circumstances of the Cold War, the project was abruptly called off in 1984, with construction of the doomed project only 85 percent completed. For 26 years, the site lay mostly abandoned, used for storage and as a fertilizer factory, before opening its doors to Chinese tourists in 2010………https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/816-underground-nuclear-plant

October 17, 2019 Posted by | China, history, technology | Leave a comment

Russia and the quest for nuclear power in space

Below are extracts from this very thoroughly researched article. The original contains much historical detail, good diagrams and excellent references

Ekipazh: Russia’s top-secret nuclear-powered satellite, The Space Review, by Bart Hendrickx, Monday, October 7, 2019  There is strong evidence from publicly available sources that a Russian company called KB Arsenal is working on a new type of military satellite equipped with a nuclear power source. Called Ekipazh, its mission may well be to perform electronic warfare from space.

KB Arsenal, based in St. Petersburg, is no newcomer to the development of nuclear-powered satellites. In the Soviet days it built satellites known as US-A (standing for “active controllable satellite”), which carried nuclear reactors to power radars used for ocean reconnaissance (in the West they were known as “radar ocean reconnaissance satellites” or RORSAT for short.)  ……………
 evidence emerged in the past few years for the existence of another KB Arsenal project with the odd name Ekipazh (a French loanword meaning both “crew” and “horse-drawn carriage”). The name first surfaced in the 2015 annual report of a company called NPP KP Kvant, which manufactures optical sensors for satellite orientation systems. It revealed that the company had signed a contract with KB Arsenal under project Ekipazh to deliver an Earth sensor (designated 108M) for “transport and energy modules.” According to the 2015 report, test flights of Ekipazh were to be completed in 2021.
Documentation published in recent weeks and months on Russia’s publicly accessible government procurement website zakupki.gov.ru has now confirmed that Ekipazh and TEM are indeed separate efforts. While TEM is a civilian project started jointly by Roscosmos and Rosatom in 2010, Ekipazh officially got underway on August 13, 2014, with a contract signed between KB Arsenal and the Ministry of Defense. It has the military index 14F350, an out-of-sequence number in the 14F satellite designation system, pointing to the satellite’s unusual nature………
While this procurement documentation reveals little about the true nature of Ekipazh and its “transport and energy module,” contractual information that appeared on the procurement website this summer provides conclusive evidence that Ekipazh is a nuclear-powered satellite and leaves little doubt that it uses the Plazma-2010 platform or an outgrowth of it…………

Regulatory issues

Despite the safety risks associated with launching nuclear reactors into space, there are no international rules forbidding nations from doing so. In September 1992, the General Assembly of the United Nations did adopt the so-called “Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space,” but these do not have the same binding force as the UN Outer Space Treaties.

One of the Principles stipulates that nuclear reactors may be operated on interplanetary missions, orbits high enough to allow for a sufficient decay of the fission products, or in low-Earth orbits if they are boosted to sufficiently high orbits after the operational part of the mission. As explained earlier, the latter procedure was followed for the Soviet-era RORSAT missions, but it is highly unlikely that Russia would want to risk repeating the Cosmos 954 experience of 1978. In fact, the very presence of a “transport and energy module” on Ekipazh is a sure sign that it will be placed into an orbit high enough to prevent any harm. Before the nuclear-powered TEM is even activated, a liquid-fuel propulsion system may first boost the satellite to an orbital altitude of at least 800 kilometers, the same procedure that has been described for the one-megawatt TEM. During a recent question-and-answer question with students in St. Petersburg, Roscosmos chief Dmitri Rogozin confirmed that 800 kilometers is the minimum operating altitude for nuclear reactors. Judging from Russian press reports, Rogozin was actually replying to a question about Ekipazh, but seemingly dodged that by talking about the one-megawatt reactor instead.[38]

Another Principle states that launching nations should make a thorough and comprehensive safety assessment and share the results of that with other nations before launch:

The results of this safety assessment, together with, to the extent feasible, an indication of the approximate intended time-frame of the launch, shall be made publicly available prior to each launch and the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall be informed on how States may obtain such results of the safety assessment as soon as possible prior to each launch.

Russia adhered to this rule on the only occasion that it launched nuclear material into space after the adoption of the 1992 Principles. This was on the ill-fated Mars-96 interplanetary mission, which carried two surface penetrators powered by small radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs). However, unlike Ekipazh, Mars-96 was an international scientific mission and the presence of the RTGs was widely known. It will be interesting to see how Russia deals with this issue once the top-secret Ekipazh nears launch.

Outlook

It may well be several more years before that launch takes place. Although the initial goal appears to have been to finish test flights by 2021, the available procurement documentation suggests that the first mission is still some time off. Ekipazh may well be experiencing the same kind of delays suffered by many other Russian space projects due to both budgetary issues and Western-imposed sanctions that have complicated the supply of electronic components for space hardware. On top of that, the development of a nuclear-powered satellite is bound to pose some daunting technical challenges that may further contribute to the delays.

One also wonders if the Russians are biting off more than they can chew by simultaneously working on two nuclear electric space tugs (Ekipazh and the one-megawatt TEM). An attempt to streamline this effort seems to have been made by giving KB Arsenal a leading role in both projects in 2014, making it possible to benefit from the company’s earlier experience in the field and infrastructure that it may already have in place to test related hardware. Still, the two projects use fundamentally different nuclear reactors built by different organizations.

The slow progress made in developing the one-megawatt gas-turbine reactor has left many wondering if it will ever fly in space. If Russia plans to use nuclear reactors solely for practical applications in Earth orbit, it may make more sense to abandon the gas-turbine reactor altogether and upgrade the capacity of Krasnaya Zvezda’s thermionic reactors. The company has already done conceptual work on thermionic reactors with a maximum capacity of several hundred kilowatts, even though their operational lifetime would be limited.[39] If this path is chosen, Ekipazh could serve as a testbed for all the nuclear reactors that Russia intends to fly in the near future. However, the country is unlikely to let all the money and effort invested in the one-megawatt TEM go to waste, even if its capabilities may not be needed until well into the 2030s or even later.
Project Ekipazh is discussed in this thread on the NASA Spaceflight Forum, which is updated with new information as it becomes available……. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3809/1

October 14, 2019 Posted by | Reference, Russia, space travel | Leave a comment

Physics Nobel Laureate predicts NO Migration to Other Planets

Humans will not ‘migrate’ to other planets, Nobel winner says,  https://phys.org/news/2019-10-humans-migrate-planets-nobel-winner.html?fbclid=IwAR2JOS8NV_Z1FWLWspae0m611nKzYdZaHB7DQGvVEYIpDnYqYKgsDnPQCDc  10 Oct 19   Humans will never migrate to a planet outside of Earth’s solar system because it would take far too long to get there, Swiss Nobel laureate Michel Mayor said Wednesday.

Mayor and his colleague Didier Queloz were on Tuesday awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their research refining techniques to detect so-called exoplanets.

“If we are talking about exoplanets, things should be clear: we will not migrate there,” Mayor told AFP near Madrid on the sidelines of a conference when asked about the possibility of humans moving to other planets.

“These planets are much, much too far away. Even in the very optimistic case of a livable planet that is not too far, say a few dozen light years, which is not a lot, it’s in the neighbourhood, the time to go there is considerable,” he added.

“We are talking about hundreds of millions of days using the means we have available today. We must take care of our planet, it is very beautiful and still absolutely liveable.”

The 77-year-old said he felt the need to “kill all the statements that say ‘OK, we will go to a liveable planet if one day life is not possible on earth’.”

“It’s completely crazy,” he added.

Using custom-made instruments at their observatory in southern France, Mayor and Queloz in October 1995 discovered what had previously only existed in the realm of science fiction—a planet outside Earth’s solar system.

Mayor was a professor at Geneva University and Queloz was his doctorate student, when they made the discovery which started a revolution in astronomy. Since then over 4,000 exoplanets have been found in our home galaxy.

“It was a very old question which was debated by philosophers: are there other worlds in the Universe?,” Mayor said.

“We look for planets which are the closest (to us), which could resemble Earth. Together with my colleague we started this search for planets, we showed it was possible to study them.”

Mayor said it was up to the “next generation” to answer the question of whether there is life on other planets.

“We don’t know! The only way to do it is to develop techniques that would allow us to detect life at a distance,” he said.

October 12, 2019 Posted by | 2 WORLD, space travel | Leave a comment